Potential Big GFC Discussion Thread

[fmc351]

Apparently they are across the street from high rise Housing Commission flats, buggered if Id pay $1 mil to live there.

[geckoGT]

Happy if people wish to discuss the Block but it really is getting away from the topic of the thread unless the comments are about the real estate market and their effects/indications regarding a GFC. I think it is time to get back OT.

Feel free to start a thread on the Block if you wish.

[Chopped]

Sought of back on topic.

Will Gold be the next to crash ?

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Chopped

Sought of back on topic.

Will Gold be the next to crash ?

My opinion no I dont beleive it will, gold is a safe haven asset, if times look bad investors buy up gold. If gold were to crash it would mean the economy is strong

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by SB076

My opinion no I dont beleive it will, gold is a safe haven asset, if times look bad investors buy up gold. If gold were to crash it would mean the economy is strong

I can't believe the gold rush we are seeing... Would like to know the rationale behind the bold bit?? If Gold were to crash I would think it's because there is no money left to spend?

Gold seemed to boom in the late 70's early 80's then dropped to half its boom value within 3 years.

I'm sure there were other influences involved, but I think gold is just the fad investment medium of the current time. Just like heaps are buying because of the massive gains, how many would be bailing out really fast if the losses end up being just as rapid?

http://goldprice.org/30-year-gold-price-history.html

The Rand and Rupee prices seem a lot more stable as well?? Wonder why?

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

I can't believe the gold rush we are seeing... Would like to know the rationale behind the bold bit?? If Gold were to crash I would think it's because there is no money left to spend?

Gold seemed to boom in the late 70's early 80's then dropped to half its boom value within 3 years.

I'm sure there were other influences involved, but I think gold is just the fad investment medium of the current time. Just like heaps are buying because of the massive gains, how many would be bailing out really fast if the losses end up being just as rapid?

Supply and demand. Gold value has boomed because of the same reasons other minerals have boomed. Many more people in the market, China and India particularly. It being a premium mineral, it is inevitable given the current boom that its boom would be large. This is gold for its value as a thing of bling.

Shares can completely disappear during an economic downturn, or they can fall in value but survive and recover after a market recovery, however its hit and miss. Gold will still have value after a bust no matter what. It wont be the same value but retaining 30% of your worth is better than losing it all. You can rebuild without starting from scratch. This is gold for its value as a vessel for protecting wealth.

[trippytaka]

I agree about gold.

Slight segue but where is oil at the moment? It's usally the opposite with oil, isn't it? when times are tough, oil drops because demand slows.

IN other news:

Business failures spike to highest level in a year
Larissa Ham
August 24, 2011 - 11:00AM

Business failures in the June quarter reached their highest level in 12 months, with small retail, finance and service businesses hardest hit.

Almost 3000 Australia firms went under - a jump of 25 per cent from the previous quarter, figures released by credit reporting agency Dun & Bradstreet showed today.

Dun & Bradstreet also downgraded 75,000 firms during the June quarter, meaning they are more likely to experience financial distress.
Advertisement: Story continues below

While insolvencies rose, the number of new businesses also jumped by 16 per cent since the March quarter to 41,000.

However there was a sharp decline in the number of new retail and service businesses. Retail fell 91 per cent and service businesses by 85 per cent.

Reduced cash flow took its toll on smaller businesses across the country, with failure rates for firms with five employees or under rising 20 per cent, and those with six to 19 employees rising 30 per cent quarter on quarter.

Dun & Bradstreet chief executive Christine Christian said the data ties in with other key economic indicators that suggest a variety of challenges for the business community.

"Our recent trade payment data recorded a 20 per cent jump in delinquent payments, and Dynamic Risk Score data (by D&B) showed us a significant number of firms with downgraded risk scores - all occurring within the same three-month period," Ms Christian said.

"Cash flow is the mitigating factor here, particularly for small businesses who feel the effects a lot faster than larger companies with cash reserves to match."

The best sectors to be in during the June quarter were mining, public administration, agriculture, forestry and fishing.

Ms Christian said there was an almost non-existent start-up rate in key consumer-driven industries, showing a lack of confidence in the current market and difficulty in accessing credit.

New South Wales had the highest number of failures at more than 1200, followed by Victoria with 615 and Queensland at 462

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

I can't believe the gold rush we are seeing... Would like to know the rationale behind the bold bit?? If Gold were to crash I would think it's because there is no money left to spend?

Gold seemed to boom in the late 70's early 80's then dropped to half its boom value within 3 years.

I'm sure there were other influences involved, but I think gold is just the fad investment medium of the current time. Just like heaps are buying because of the massive gains, how many would be bailing out really fast if the losses end up being just as rapid?

http://goldprice.org/30-year-gold-price-history.html

The Rand and Rupee prices seem a lot more stable as well?? Wonder why?

Think you will find thats one of the things that have increased the value of gold is the printing of money by the US (QE1, QE2) Therefore its not a shortage of money its the abundance of money. Maybe a lot of investors have moved away from US bonds etc over fears of the US devaluing its currency and have jumped on to gold.

Gold has dropped a bit, interesting to see how other currencies compared to gold thanks for the info. To be honest I dont know other currencies that well - It is interesting to hear that the Japanese government has been trying to devalue their own currency

[buggerlugs]

http://www.news.com.au/business/mark...-1226121224115
What GFC crisis...................??

[WMD351]

I think there's a few Asian countries that have been building up their gold reserves recently as the US starts to seem a less desirable place to park your cash.

[AMGC63]

Originally Posted by buggerlugs

http://www.news.com.au/business/mark...-1226121224115
What GFC crisis...................??

Oi! that's enough of the positive stuff thanks.. LOL

[CJR09]

Originally Posted by WMD351

I think there's a few Asian countries that have been building up their gold reserves recently as the US starts to seem a less desirable place to park your cash.

i thought i had posted this but maybe not - zero hedge from last week...


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chavez...sical-starting


As Chavez Pulls Venezuela's Gold From JP Morgan, Is The Great Scramble For Physical Starting?
Tyler Durden's picture
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/17/2011 16:27 -0400

Bank of England
Barclays
BOE
Nationalization



In addition to the nationalization of his gold insutry, Chavez earlier also announced that he would recover virtually all gold that Venezuela hold abroad, starting with 99 tons of gold at the Bank of England. As the WSJ reported earlier, "The Bank of England recently received a request from the Venezuelan government about transferring the 99 tons of gold Venezuela holds in the bank back to Venezuela, said a person familiar with the matter. A spokesman from the Bank of England declined to comment whether Venezuela had any gold on deposit at the bank." That's great, but not really a gamechanger. After all the BOE should have said gold. What could well be a gamechanger is that according to an update from Bloomberg, Venezuela has gold with, you guessed it, JP Morgan, Barclays, and Bank Of Nova Scotia. As most know, JPM is one of the 5 vault banks. The fun begins if Chavez demands physical delivery of more than 10.6 tons of physical because as today's CME update of metal depository statistics, JPM only has 338,303 ounces of registered gold in storage. Or roughly 10.6 tons. A modest deposit of this size would cause some serious white hair at JPM as the bank scrambles to find the replacement gold, which has already been pledged about 100 times across the various paper markets. Keep an eye on gold in the illiquid after hour market. The overdue scramble for delivery may be about to begin.

[GASWAGON]

So even the Gold is rigged....FFS these banks are ruining the entire world!

[trippytaka]

Who was it asking about Gold yesterday?

Gold plunges as markets stabilise
August 25, 2011 - 6:25AM

Gold plunged $US104 in New York, capping the biggest drop since March 2008, on speculation that financial markets may be stabilizing, eroding the appeal of the precious metal as a haven.

Bullion has tumbled more than 7 per cent in two days, erasing gains in the past two weeks that sent the metal up as much as 16 per cent since Aug. 5 to a record $US1,917.90 an ounce yesterday. On Aug. 16, Wells Fargo & Co. said in a report that rising speculative demand from investors had pushed the market into a "bubble that is poised to burst."

"This is liquidation from a crowded trade," Adam Klopfenstein, a senior market strategist at MF Global Holdings Ltd. in Chicago, said in a telephone interview. "In the short run, there's more optimism and that doesn't bode well for gold. Investors have been using gold more as a fear barometer than a proxy for inflation."
Advertisement: Story continues below

Gold futures for December delivery plunged 5.6 per cent to settle at $US1,757.30 at 2:02 p.m. on the Comex in New York, the biggest decline for a most-active contract since March 19, 2008.

"The motions that you are seeing are now indications of a market pop," Erik Davidson, the deputy chief investment officer at Wells Fargo and one of the authors of last week's report, said in a telephone interview. "People should keep in mind that a reserve currency does not fluctuate as much as gold."

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by AMGC63

Oi! that's enough of the positive stuff thanks.. LOL

Yeah, awesome... how much of it goes into the public purse for investment into our country? Not enough. How much Aussie materials are used? well 90% of the steel is from o/s, so there goes Bluescope's exports.

This kind of profit is great, only when the copmpany making the profits is giving back enough. At the moment, we're not seeing enough benefits from this.

[Gobes32]

Originally Posted by buggerlugs

http://www.news.com.au/business/mark...-1226121224115
What GFC crisis...................??

And yet the miners were adamant that a mining tax would send them broke. They really do have this country by the balls..........

[trippytaka]

More from the US... New York Times

U.S. May Back Refinance Plan for Mortgages
By SHAILA DEWAN and LOUISE STORY
Published: August 24, 2011


The Obama administration is considering further actions to strengthen the housing market, but the bar is high: plans must help a broad swath of homeowners, stimulate the economy and cost next to nothing.

One proposal would allow millions of homeowners with government-backed mortgages to refinance them at today’s lower interest rates, about 4 percent, according to two people briefed on the administration’s discussions who asked not to be identified because they were not allowed to talk about the information.

A wave of refinancing could be a strong stimulus to the economy, because it would lower consumers’ mortgage bills right away and allow them to spend elsewhere. But such a sweeping change could face opposition from the regulator who oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and from investors in government-backed mortgage bonds.

Administration officials said on Wednesday that they were weighing a range of proposals, including changes to its previous refinancing programs to increase the number of homeowners taking part. They are also working on a home rental program that would try to shore up housing prices by preventing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes from flooding the market. That program is further along — the administration requested ideas for execution from the private sector earlier this month.

But refinancing could have far greater breadth, saving homeowners, by one estimate, $85 billion a year. Despite record low interest rates, many homeowners have been unable to refinance their loans either because they owe more than their houses are now worth or because their credit is tarnished.

Exactly how a refinancing plan might work is still under discussion. It is unclear, for example, whether people who are delinquent on their mortgages would be eligible or whether lenders would administer it. Federal officials have consistently overestimated the number of households that would be helped by their various housing assistance programs.

A working group of housing experts across several federal agencies could recommend one or both proposals, or come up with new ones. Or it might decide to do nothing.

Investors may suspect a plan is in the works. Fannie and Freddie mortgage bonds had been trading well above their face value because so few people were refinancing, keeping returns on the bonds high. But those bond prices dropped sharply this week.

Administration discussions about housing proposals have taken on added urgency this summer because the housing market is continuing to deteriorate. On Wednesday, the government said that prices of homes with government-backed mortgages fell 5.9 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier, the biggest decline since 2009. More than one in five homeowners with mortgages owe more than their homes are worth. Some analysts are now predicting waves of foreclosures and a continuing slide in home prices.

There is not much time to help the market before the 2012 election, and given Congressional resistance to other types of stimulus, housing may be the only economic fix in reach. Federal programs to assist homeowners have been regarded as ineffective so far, and they are complex.

“We are looking at trying to encourage more participation in all of the programs, including those that help with refinancing,” said Phyllis Caldwell, who oversees housing policy at the Treasury Department.

Some economists say that with housing prices and interest rates at affordable levels, only fear is keeping consumers out of the market. Frank E. Nothaft, the chief economist at Freddie Mac, said the federal action could instill confidence.

“It almost seems to me you want to have some type of announcement or policy, program or something from the federal government that provides that clear signal that we are here supporting the housing market and this is indeed a good time to really consider buying,” Mr. Nothaft said.

The refinancing idea has been around since at least 2008, but proponents say the recent drop in interest rates to below 4 percent may breathe new life into the plan.

“This is the best stimulus out there because it doesn’t increase the deficit, it accomplishes monetary policy, and it reduces defaults in housing,” said Christopher J. Mayer, an economist at the Columbia Business School. “So I think this is low-hanging fruit.” Mr. Mayer and a colleague, Glenn Hubbard, who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, proposed an early version of the plan.

The idea is appealing because it would not necessarily require Congressional action. It also would not tap any of the $45.6 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Funds that was set aside to help struggling homeowners. Only $22.9 billion of that pool has been spent or pledged so far, and fewer than 1.7 million loans have been modified under federal programs. But Andrea Risotto, a Treasury spokeswoman, said whatever was left would be used to reduce the federal deficit.

A mass refinancing plan would spread the benefits of the Federal Reserve’s most important economic policy response, low interest rates, to more people. As of July, an estimated $2.4 trillion in mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie carried interest rates of 4.5 percent or higher.

The two prevailing ideas, lowering rates on mortgages and converting houses owned by government entities like Freddie and Fannie into rentals and other uses, have somewhat different pockets of support. Investment firms would like to participate in the rental program, especially if the government lends them money to participate. For the most part, banks prefer the refinancing plan. There are many high-ranking proponents of the refinancing plan. Joseph Tracy, a senior adviser to the chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, has circulated a presentation in support of the plan. And Richard B. Berner, who recently joined the Treasury Department as counselor to Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, argued in favor of a blanket refinancing in his previous job as chief United States economist for Morgan Stanley. The proponents say the plan carries little risk because the mortgages are already guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They also say it makes those loans less likely to go into default and ultimately foreclosure.

But the plan has some drawbacks. Some officials fear that promoting mass refinancings today could spook investors and make borrowing more expensive, for both homeowners and the federal government, in the future.

The government has already encouraged some refinancing through the Federal Housing Administration and through Fannie and Freddie, but participation is limited. For example, the Home Affordable Refinance Program excludes homeowners who owe more than 125 percent of the value of their house. To spur more refinancing, the government may decide to encourage Fannie and Freddie to lift such restrictions.

But government officials cautioned that Fannie and Freddie do not do the administration’s bidding, even though they are essentially owned by taxpayers. Edward J. DeMarco, who oversees the companies as chairman of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has voiced concerns about any plan that might cost the companies money, according to the two people briefed on the discussions. “F.H.F.A. remains open to all ideas that provide needed assistance to borrowers” while minimizing the cost to taxpayers, Mr. DeMarco said in a written statement.

A broader criticism of a refinancing expansion is that it would not do enough to address the two main drivers of foreclosures: homes worth less than their mortgages, and a sudden loss of income, like unemployment. American homeowners currently owe some $700 billion more than their homes are worth.

[peachey80]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Yeah, awesome... how much of it goes into the public purse for investment into our country? Not enough. How much Aussie materials are used? well 90% of the steel is from o/s, so there goes Bluescope's exports.

This kind of profit is great, only when the copmpany making the profits is giving back enough. At the moment, we're not seeing enough benefits from this.

Not really sure where you are coming from with this one mate.
How much more do you want to go back into the country ? How about 100odd thousand Australians it employes, and more than that again of contractors, and what about the billions it spends from australian suppliers to keep the place running ?
90% of what steel is from o/seas ? BHPB don't make steel...

At the end of the day, it's an Australian owned company, we should be proud that an Aussie company is well inside the top 10, 6th in fact in terms of market value in the entire world !
I could maybe understand a bit of a whinge if China owned BHPB.......

Not seeing the benefits huh ? You would see the benefits if it were all taken away, or lack of them.

[BA GT-HO]

Good post ^

The company is giving a lot back by just having a big presence in Australia.

Thread has gone quiet, I guess there is not enough bad press out at the moment.

[trippytaka]

Not too sure wher everyone is, I know I m getting reemed at work, so it's tough to get any time on here at all these days. Plus I stopped posting negative reports I was finding from Eurpoe and American papers and journals - I didn't want to be seen as negative, so I am now posting only different things of interest like the mortgage post above.

On mining... I agree that it creates a lot of jobs. BHP is massive.

Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate the impact that BHP has on Oz - from jobs, to tax, to superannution funds. I do get it. I know BHP, along with the other mining companies, contribute to Australia. But IMO, not enough.

Correct, BHP doesn't make steel. Bluescope does. And there are others. We just can't do it as cheap as the Chinese because their labour costs are so low.

I am probably going to get slammed for "protectionist ideals" here, but in all seriousness, when you have an indistry that is making such MASSIVE profits on Australia's resources we need to do more to make sure that the money is staying in Australia. There should be laws or subsidies in place to ensure that big projects, that are using public assets, use a high percentage of Australian materials, expertise etc. Do you think China would let a company walk in, mine and use foreign built machinery and materials?

Why not mandate that Australian companies get allocated a certain amount of minerals at a set price - to be XX% cheaper than market rate?

When you look at the way land ownership is set up in OZ, a land owner owns basically the topsoil. What lies beneath is meant to be owned by the country to be used for the good of the country. Farmers, provate land owners etc must allow mineral exploration on their land and if it's found, they don't own the minerals.

This brings me to foreign ownership. Sure, BHP australian company. Actually 40% foreign owned, according to the latest reports. And yep, I do understand that most of the projects that get going wouldn't have half a chance without foreign investment. But if you dig into the ownership of the big projects you start to see how much foreign ownership is actually in play in all the projects.

Here is one of the breakdowns of fereign ownership in big mining projects in OZ.
http://www.maynereport.com/articles/...2040-8377.html

I don't know, call me crazy, but in 50 years time I would like to sit back with my grandkids and see that the Australia that they are growing into has been smart and been aided by the mining boom as much as possible. Right now we are in a two speed economy, where manufacturing (employs over 1million Australians) is hurting - export manufacturing especially because of the high Aussie dollar, caused in part by mining boom.

ete etc.

Again, call me crazy, but it would be nice if there were new industries being developed, and the next generation was better educated because of the mining boom.

[Charliewool]

Governments both present and past have done zilch to protect Australian industry.
Steel tarrifs, subsidies or similar to what trippy mentions above to protect our inhouse mills is just too much like common sense.
A classic example is our once mighty wool industry.
Up until around 2003 a high percentage of our exported wool was shipped as either early stage processed (Scoured or carbonised) or as wool tops (the stage before spinning).
The Chinese thought "we can do this processing much cheaper here in China"
Our wool growers and wool processors got wind of this and pleaded with the government to put a buyer's tarrif on unprocessed (raw) wool leaving Australia.
Australia being the world's largest wool exporter, naturally we held the upper hand and had the control?
While our government bureaucrats pontificated over it, China beat them to the punch and put their OWN tarrif on PROCESSED wool entering China.
And our bloody government didn't even bat an eyelid over it.
Result... Within 2 years virtually every wool processing plant in Australia had shut it's doors, never to reopen.
It was the beginning of the end for our great wool industry AND for the phrase... "Riding on the sheeps back"

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Governments both present and past have done zilch to protect Australian industry.
Steel tarrifs, subsidies or similar to what trippy mentions above to protect our inhouse mills is just too much like common sense.
A classic example is our once mighty wool industry.
Up until around 2003 a high percentage of our exported wool was shipped as either early stage processed (Scoured or carbonised) or as wool tops (the stage before spinning).
The Chinese thought "we can do this processing much cheaper here in China"
Our wool growers and wool processors got wind of this and pleaded with the government to put a buyer's tarrif on unprocessed (raw) wool leaving Australia.
Australia being the world's largest wool exporter, naturally we held the upper hand and had the control?
While our government bureaucrats pontificated over it, China beat them to the punch and put their OWN tarrif on PROCESSED wool entering China.
And our bloody government didn't even bat an eyelid over it.
Result... Within 2 years virtually every wool processing plant in Australia had shut it's doors, never to reopen.
It was the beginning of the end for our great wool industry AND for the phrase... "Riding on the sheeps back"

Case in point.

[FTE217]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Not too sure wher everyone is, I know I m getting reemed at work, so it's tough to get any time on here at all these days. Plus I stopped posting negative reports I was finding from Eurpoe and American papers and journals - I didn't want to be seen as negative, so I am now posting only different things of interest like the mortgage post above.

On mining... I agree that it creates a lot of jobs. BHP is massive.

Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate the impact that BHP has on Oz - from jobs, to tax, to superannution funds. I do get it. I know BHP, along with the other mining companies, contribute to Australia. But IMO, not enough.

Correct, BHP doesn't make steel. Bluescope does. And there are others. We just can't do it as cheap as the Chinese because their labour costs are so low.

I am probably going to get slammed for "protectionist ideals" here, but in all seriousness, when you have an indistry that is making such MASSIVE profits on Australia's resources we need to do more to make sure that the money is staying in Australia. There should be laws or subsidies in place to ensure that big projects, that are using public assets, use a high percentage of Australian materials, expertise etc. Do you think China would let a company walk in, mine and use foreign built machinery and materials?

Why not mandate that Australian companies get allocated a certain amount of minerals at a set price - to be XX% cheaper than market rate?

When you look at the way land ownership is set up in OZ, a land owner owns basically the topsoil. What lies beneath is meant to be owned by the country to be used for the good of the country. Farmers, provate land owners etc must allow mineral exploration on their land and if it's found, they don't own the minerals.

This brings me to foreign ownership. Sure, BHP australian company. Actually 40% foreign owned, according to the latest reports. And yep, I do understand that most of the projects that get going wouldn't have half a chance without foreign investment. But if you dig into the ownership of the big projects you start to see how much foreign ownership is actually in play in all the projects.

Here is one of the breakdowns of fereign ownership in big mining projects in OZ.
http://www.maynereport.com/articles/...2040-8377.html

I don't know, call me crazy, but in 50 years time I would like to sit back with my grandkids and see that the Australia that they are growing into has been smart and been aided by the mining boom as much as possible. Right now we are in a two speed economy, where manufacturing (employs over 1million Australians) is hurting - export manufacturing especially because of the high Aussie dollar, caused in part by mining boom.

ete etc.

Again, call me crazy, but it would be nice if there were new industries being developed, and the next generation was better educated because of the mining boom.

About bloody time in bold above - you may even enjoy life for a change "Crazy" before it ends

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by FTE217

About bloody time in bold above - you may even enjoy life for a change "Crazy" before it ends

LOL, just for that, here's the headlines in London

Market crash 'could hit within weeks', warn bankers

A more severe crash than the one triggered by the collapse of Lehman Brothers could be on the way, according to alarm signals in the credit markets.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...n-bankers.html

Hahaha

Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

And by the way, I love life! I really do. I am very happy - apart from being smashed at work.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

LOL, just for that, here's the headlines in London
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...n-bankers.html

Hahaha
Sorry, but I couldn't resist.
And by the way, I love life! I really do. I am very happy - apart from being smashed at work.

I like the way that all the 'experts' are now busy talking about another dip/crash/recession/depression, but didn't see the GFC coming.

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I like the way that all the 'experts' are now busy talking about another dip/crash/recession/depression, but didn't see the GFC coming.

it makes me wonder how any of them make so much money. WTF? It's like predicting the weather five months out.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I like the way that all the 'experts' are now busy talking about another dip/crash/recession/depression, but didn't see the GFC coming.

Didn't want to admit to it coming maybe?

I'm on the rollercoaster for whatever happens. There's nothing I can do to avoid it, so I might as well just sit back and take what's coming.

I'll worry about it later.

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I like the way that all the 'experts' are now busy talking about another dip/crash/recession/depression, but didn't see the GFC coming.

Spot on....Both the GFC and the 1987 stock market crash were not predicted...I think it's safe to say that if they are saying it will happen then it probably won't..a bit like the weather forecast

[FTE217]

Originally Posted by MAD

Didn't want to admit to it coming maybe?

I'm on the rollercoaster for whatever happens. There's nothing I can do to avoid it, so I might as well just sit back and take what's coming.

I'll worry about it later.

Thats it get on with it - as Trippy again waste's time looking up in London another "press release" that will hit his back pocket in the near future but he will still be very happy

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by FTE217

Thats it get on with it - as Trippy again waste's time looking up in London another "press release" that will hit his back pocket in the near future but he will still be very happy

Haha I don't need to look it up, I have my Google alerts set on "doom and Gloom" and follow Henny Penny's sky falling in blog